Which Country Will The US Invade Next With The War On Terrorism?

XPERT a very real quote. I love my country, however I must agree if we can't crush, and I do mean CRUSH Iraq and then look ay th er est of the world and say "Anybody else?" then the future is not a very bright one.......

Originally posted by enomus

Originally posted by keke
My money is on Iran, but first we'll need a terrorist attack on our soil...

ahhh, you beat me to it!

He beat me to it too.

Originally posted by Gazrok
*spins the Wheel of Evil*

*SPIN....SPIN...SPIN....*

*click...click...click*

"IRAN! Congratulations! You're the next contestant in..."The War on Terror"!

With its resurfaced zeal in obtaining nuclear weapons, expect to see such facilities bathed in the light of dropping bombs on a television near you! Back to you Bob.....

Why don�t you finish the mess you made in Iraq and Afghanistan and then talk about invading a bigger, much stronger country.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
The US does not have to worry about Iran�s nuclear facility because Israel will take it out if Iran decides to start making nukes.

While Iran just sits idly by and let's it happen? The Iranians have already said there will be retaliation if Israel strikes their nuclear facilities, so then what? US supports Israel against Iran, Hezbollah starts firing missiles into Israel, Syria backs up Iran, China coverly helps Iran (new oil deal to protect), US invades the entire middle east?

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, a clever man said that once.

Obviously Iran. They started the propaganda before the election, and then quit while the election was happening. Look for the revival of propaganda.

I recall Iraq saying that they were going to destroy Israel. That never happened even after the Israelis took out Saddam's nuclear reactor. The Iranians know what would happen to them if they retaliated.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I recall Iraq saying that they were going to destroy Israel. That never happened even after the Israelis took out Saddam's nuclear reactor. The Iranians know what would happen to them if they retaliated.

most of iran's nuclear facilities are spread out with most of their vital sections being buried underground...i don't think israel has the ability to hit multiple targets deep inside or iran...plus they'd most likely need to use iraqi airspace, which would mean the US 'participation'.

iran is also the home of shi'a muslims (95% of their population)...shi'a is the 2nd largest sect of islam believers...sunni being the 1st. attacking them would cause a swelling of support from all over the muslim world...iraq and iran would be flooded with shi'as and don't be surprised if china covertly supports them as well.

Here is an article that covers most of the scope of the discussion about wether Israel will and or has the capability to succesfully carry out an attack on iran's nuclear facilities.

enomus , why do you want saudi arabia invaded?
has it annoyed in anyway?

devilwasp,
if i'm going to support a war on terrorism, i'd like to focus on actual countries that harbor and support terrorism and saudi arabia is pretty high on that list.

"The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document."
[Source: Los Angeles Times, 8/3/03]

"Senior officials of Saudi Arabia have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable groups and other organizations that may have helped finance the September 2001 attacks, a still-classified section of a Congressional report on the hijackings says, according to people who have read it. The 28-page section of the report was deleted from the nearly 900-page declassified version released on Thursday by a joint committee of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The chapter focuses on the role foreign governments played in the hijackings, but centers almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, the people who saw the section said.
[Source: New York Times, 7/26/03]

""When the question is raised about why we haven't clamped down on the Saudis for their support of terrorism, it's very hard to answer � it may be that we are concerned that the Saudi government could be unstable and could be overthrown like Iran was if the leadership in Saudi Arabia is questioned. I don't know of any good reason why we tolerate it, when we lose thousands of Americans on 9/11 and 14 [sic] of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, and when you have them spending $4 billion a year allegedly to charities with a lot of the money being funneled to terrorists � I think its high time we crack down, with economic sanctions or criminal sanctions where they aid and abet terrorists who murder American citizens."
[Source: Republican Sen. Arlen Specter conference call with reporters on 8/1/03]


there's plenty more if you care to do some googling.

yeah but why specifically saudi arabia?
why not iran? palastien? one of the african countries. (in my opinion the largest quantity of terrorists will be there.)

Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
If America invades more countries there will probably appear a collation of American enemies who will over run her and ultimately destroy her. (china? russia? arab states? etc)

You mean a bunch of countries would team up to get nuked off the planet. Would they destroy America yes heck Russia could do that alone. But they would all also get destoyed in the process. We have enough nukes to go around to all those countries.

But aint no one overrunning the US it would come down to a nuclear war long before that.

Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah but why specifically saudi arabia?
why not iran? palastien? one of the african countries. (in my opinion the largest quantity of terrorists will be there.)

did you read the quotes in my post?

yes i did but i am asking why doesnt the US go into africa?

Originally posted by devilwasp
yes i did but i am asking why doesnt the US go into africa?

Battling terrorism in Chad
By Martin Plaut
BBC correspondent in Chad

"United States troops are in Chad training some of the country's elite forces in how to fight al-Qaeda or any of its allies in the region.

This is the latest battleground in what United States President George W Bush calls the global war on terrorism.

Twenty-five US marines have been stationed at a base 50km south of the capital Ndjamena at a military base, Camp Loumia, working with 170 Chadian soldiers.

It is all part of what the US calls the Pan-Sahel Initiative, with US forces improving military training in Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger."

continued here...

[edit on 14-11-2004 by enomus]